Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[sjastro]

Nice try, Astro.



SOURCE

QV post 480.

Do you understand what the c in c. 1482–79 bce means?
It means circa or about, in fact the commonly accepted reign for Thutmose II is 1493- 79 bce.
If it wasn't Thutmose II then it must have been his father Thutmose I .
Yet Thutmose I has never been considered the pharaoh of the Exodus by historians both ancient, past and contemporary and archaeologists.

Pepi I (24th - 23rd century BC): Emmanuel Anati has argued that the Exodus should be placed between the 24th and the 21st century BC and that Pepi I should be identified as the pharaoh of the Exodus. This theory has not gained acceptance and has received strong criticism from Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and American Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier.

Dedumose II (died c. 1690 BC): David Rohl's 1995 A Test of Time revised Egyptian history by shortening the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt by almost 300 years. As a result, the synchronisms with the biblical narrative results in the Second Intermediate period King Dedumose II the pharaoh of the Exodus. Rohl's revision has been turned down by the vast majority of Egyptologists.

Ahmose I (1550–1525 BC): Several church fathers identified Ahmose I, who reconquered lower Egypt from the Hyksos, rulers of Asiatic (Semitic) origin, as the pharaoh of the Exodus, based on Herodotus, Manetho, Josephus and other classical authors’ identification of the Hyksos with the Hebrews.

Hatshepsut (1507–1458 BC). Diodorus Siculus identified the Jews with the Hyksos and identified the pharaoh of the Exodus with Queen Hatshepsut.

Thutmose II (1493–1479 BC). Alfred Edersheim proposes in Old Testament Bible History that Thutmose II is best qualified to be the pharaoh of Exodus based on the fact that he had a brief, prosperous reign and then a sudden collapse with no legitimate son to succeed him. His widow Hatshepsut then became first regent (for Thutmose III, his son by his concubine Iset) before becoming pharaoh herself. Edersheim states that Thutmose II is the only pharaoh's mummy to display cysts, possible evidence of plagues that spread through the Egyptian and Hittite Empires at that time.

Akhenaten (1353–1349 BC). In his book Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest of Akhenaten who was forced to leave Egypt, along with his followers, following the pharaoh's death. Eusebius identified the pharaoh of the Exodus with a king called "Acencheres", who may be identified with Akenhaten.

Ramesses I (1292-1290 BC): Ahmed Osman identified Ramesses I as the pharaoh of the Exodus in his controversial argument about the identity of the Egyptian official Yuya.

Ramesses II (c. 1279–1213 BC): Ramesses II, or Ramesses The Great, is the most common figure for the Exodus pharaoh as one of the most long-standing rulers at the height of Egyptian power and because Rameses is mentioned in the Bible as a place name (see Genesis 47:11, Exodus 1:11, Numbers 33:3, etc). As such, he is often the pharaoh depicted in popular culture narratives of the event (such as the 1956 film The Ten Commandments and the 1998 animated film The Prince of Egypt). Although Ramesses II's late 13th Century BC stela in Beth Shan mentions two conquered peoples who came to "make obeisance to him" in his city of Raameses or Pi-Ramesses, the text mentions neither the building of the city nor, as some have written, the Israelites or Hapiru.

Merneptah (c. 1213–1203 BC): Isaac Asimov in Guide to the Bible makes a case for Merneptah to be the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Setnakhte (c. 1189–1186 BC): Igor P. Lipovsky and Israel Knohl make a case for Setnakhte to be the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Ramesses III (c. 1186–1155 BC): Gary A. Rendsburg, Baruch Halpern and Manfred Bietak make a case for Ramesses III as the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Bakenranef (c. 725-720 BC): Tacitus writes in his Histories that Bakenranef (whom he refers to as "Bocchoris") had expelled the Jews from Egypt because they suffered from a horrible disease and because he was instructed to do so by an oracle of the god Amun. Lysimachus of Alexandria, quoted by Josephus in Against Apion, also identifies the pharaoh of the Exodus with Bakenranef.

Ramses (?-?). Manetho and Chaeremon of Alexandria, both quoted by Josephus in Against Apion, state that the Jews were expelled from Egypt by a pharaoh named "Ramses", son of another pharaoh named "Amenophis". It is unclear which pharaoh this could be, since no pharaoh named Ramses had a predecessor named Amenophis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand what the c in c. 1482–79 bce means?

Yes.

It means that Thutmose II took over, NINE YEARS AFTER his predecessor was drowned in the Red Sea, trying to catch the Israelites, who were fleeing across on foot.

 

[Kylie]

Nice try, Astro.



SOURCE

QV post 480.

And what is YOUR source for the 1491BC date you gave?

 

[sjastro]

Yes.

It means that Thutmose II took over, NINE YEARS AFTER his predecessor was drowned in the Red Sea, trying to catch the Israelites, who were fleeing across on foot.

What a complete load of utter rubbish.
So now you are trying to rewrite Egyptian history equivalent to your nonsensical distortions of the Bible.
Which is it, was Egypt without a pharaoh for nine years or was there an unknown pharaoh between Thutmose I and II?

Archaeology refutes your nonsense the king lists show Thutmose II succeeded Thutmose I and the succession was immediate not nine years in the making.
What makes your nonsense even more of a problem Thutmose's II reign could have occurred earlier.
This would make Thutmose's II successor the pharaoh of the Exodus, one of Egypt's greatest pharaohs and a woman Hatshepsut.

Manetho's Epitome has been a debated topic among Egyptologists with little consensus given the small number of surviving documents for his reign, but a 13-year reign is preferred by older scholars while newer scholars prefer a shorter 3-4 year reign for this king due to the minimal amount of scarabs and monuments attested under Thutmose II. It is still possible to estimate when Thutmose II's reign would have begun by means of a heliacal rise of Sothis in Amenhotep I's reign, which would give him a reign from 1493 to 1479 BC,[5] although uncertainty about how to interpret the rise also permits a date from 1513 to 1499 BC,[6] and uncertainty about how long Thutmose I ruled could also potentially place his reign several years earlier still. Nonetheless, scholars generally assign him a reign from 1493 or 1492 to 1479.[5][7]

 

[AV1611VET]

And what is YOUR source for the 1491BC date you gave?

Post 483, Kylie.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes your nonsense even more of a problem Thutmose's II reign could have occurred earlier.

You don't know when he reigned, do you?

 

[Kylie]

Post 483, Kylie.

And how do you know Ussher got it right? Even if he counted everything correctly, it still depends on the dates and numbers in the Bible being accurate. In other words, you are once again saying reality can take a hike.

In short, you have no actual real world evidence, and as a result of that, don't expect me to believe for a second that your claims reflect reality in any way.

 

[Platte]

Since the Earth wasn't created then it really isn't a coincidence.

Writing isn't the only way to illustrate history (as has already been said). Examination of the physical artifacts of a civilization is important because people don't always provide truthful written records.

Perhaps but it sure is interesting that History (recorded) begins 6000 years ago in the Middle East just like The Bible and YEC claim.

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps but it sure is interesting that History (recorded) begins 6000 years ago in the Middle East just like The Bible and YEC claim.

Except the YEC is not that. the YEC claim is that the surface of the world was annihilated typically about 4 and a half thousand years ago.

It also ignores that much older non written examples of human culture are found all over the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

In short, you have no actual real world evidence, and as a result of that, don't expect me to believe for a second that your claims reflect reality in any way.

Would you know it, if they did?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you know that Public Hermit doesn't then?

I've think you've simply misunderstood Public Hermit, for one, brother AV. He was just stating a fact rather than giving you a recommendation.

But, what do I know that Public Hermit doesn't? .... Brother, let me tell you.......................you don't want to know.

 

[Platte]

Except the YEC is not that. the YEC claim is that the surface of the world was annihilated typically about 4 and a half thousand years ago.

It also ignores that much older non written examples of human culture are found all over the world.

Yes but YEC also says the earth was created about 6000 years in the Middle East. History (recorded) begins about 6000 years ago in the Middle East.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps but it sure is interesting that History (recorded) begins 6000 years ago in the Middle East just like The Bible and YEC claim.

Really, it isn't that interesting. Perhaps just a coincidence.

And "The Bible" doesn't actually claim the 6000-year claim. It has some references (particularly in the latter historical books) to kings and nations that can be easily found in history, this is not true of the earliest parts. Even if we granted a historical core to the narratives in Exodus and Joshua (and they are quite questionable), Genesis lacks such a core. It is full of "just-so stories" and patriarchs with sons who all found cities or nations.

To connect from the dubious history of the exodus and the "conquest" of Joshua to the start requires daisy-chaining through a list of dubious ages. "6000 years" is just the work of that quack Ussher. There is not "in the year 1457 since Adam, ...".

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but YEC also says the earth was created about 6000 years in the Middle East. History (recorded) begins about 6000 years ago in the Middle East.

That doesn't present evidence for YEC at all.

Evidence for recorded history can be dated to the middle east around 6000 years ago.

YEC time lines have recorded history being impossible before a little over 4000 years ago... due to the combination of the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

Even if you ignore all the evidence in geology and anthropology and only use records as evidence... then YEC is contradicted by evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Would you know it, if they did?

If they actually affected the real world in some way, then yes, I would be able to see this effect, and thus I would know.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they actually affected the real world in some way, then yes, I would be able to see this effect, and thus I would know.

Merry Christmas

 

[sjastro]

You don't know when he reigned, do you?

You are not doing yourself any favours with this deceptive act of cherry picking my post as a diversion.
Since you want rewrite Egyptian history don't leave your fairy tale incomplete and answer my question;
"Which is it, was Egypt without a pharaoh for nine years or was there an unknown pharaoh between Thutmose I and II?"

 

[AV1611VET]

"Which is it, was Egypt without a pharaoh for nine years or was there an unknown pharaoh between Thutmose I and II?"

How should I know? I'm not into Egyptology.

I'll take a guess and say it was Thutmose I.

 

[Kylie]

Merry Christmas

Let's chalk that up as a win for me then, shall we?

 

[driewerf]

Merry Christmas

Since you use that answer unchanged, I can use a previous reply unchanged too, except for one detail.

You have now used that answer at least three four times. I am going to assume that you consider this a rock solid example, an argument devoid of any weakness, armoured against any inquiry.
So I am going to ask you to explain in detail why you think this is a valid answer. Step by step. If possibly, please differentiate assumption from empirical evidence from reasoning from conclusion. This will improve the clarity.
Don't be shy to assume me an Immensely Idiotic Ignoramus, to which everything needs to be explained. I prefer boredom over brevity and redundancy over lack of clarity. I want to know what you hope to demonstrate with that answer for I fail to understand it.


kind regards,
driewerf

A chalange to belivers in Evolution

I'll take that as a "no," just another in the long list of points you have failed to back up. Your position is incredibly weak. About as weak as gravity, which is the weakest of the four major forces in the universe? BUT was discovered by cause-and-effect? (It's invisible, you know.)

www.christianforums.com